New football terminology is stupid

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The "Assist" stat can be totally misleading. A pass bounces of someone arse and a player scores =Assist.
A great KdB 30 yard pin-point pass, a simple tap-in but the next player scuffs it wide.
=No assist.
To get an assist, another player has to "assist" you by scoring.

That’s what xA is for! It’s the same principle, added to allow someone to quickly see how a game was played.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

American broadcasters regularly refer to “the six” and “the eighteen” to represent the goal box and penalty area lines as if they are discussing yard lines ala American football. Drives me bonkers.

I actually like how hockey gives “points” to players for goals and then both the first and second assist for goals (if there are assists; sometimes goals are unassisted) recognizing the key role for goal set-ups and wouldn’t mind if footy did the same.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

That’s what xA is for! It’s the same principle, added to allow someone to quickly see how a game was played.

Quite funny that somebody, in criticising the shortcomings of a more “normal” stat, has accidentally bumped into the entire reason somebody created a different stat.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Quite funny that somebody, in criticising the shortcomings of a more “normal” stat, has accidentally bumped into the entire reason somebody created a different stat.

Yeah. I think it’s based from the notion that your eyes see better than numbers on a page and experience.

These stats were never to replace actual in the flesh scouting of players and teams, merely enhance scouts and analysts knowledge in tandem.

Not sure why I’m saying this as you obviously know that!

 

[levets]

‘In the pockets’
‘Corridor of uncertainty’
‘Break the line’
Fuck off!

 

[Crooked_rain]

Does xG account for having donkeys in your side? Does it take into account the ability of players?

If you have some donkey who gets about 6 goals a season, then regardless of your "xG" in relation to how the game is playing out, your xG has to be lower if you've got a striker who can't hit a cows arse with a banjo nearly every week and your chances are falling to him.

Is xG mostly based on chances created? What if you have a few players in your side that can create chances out of nothing compared to mediocre players? Does xG account for that before the game even starts?

That's why I don't really get this xG stuff. If it doesn't factor in those things, then it's really missing a lot of nuances that make football what it is.

 

[Donmcfc]

Correct, all stats are just measurements. Like taking somebody’s height or weight. xG is just an average, there’s nothing mystical about it, it takes an enormous historic data set of shots on goal and just calculates averages out of it (these days they’re smarter about it but this is the basic premise). If you’re not interested in those averages then fine, nobody is telling you to be interested.

Somebody earlier in the thread said “the difference is that possession can be measured accurately” which just shows you that people don’t really understand even the numbers they’re familiar with. xG as a measure is more precise than possession which is incredibly difficult to determine. One is black and white (the averages are based on whether somebody scored or didn’t), the other has an infinite amount of shades of grey. Possession stats from different vendors conflict literally all the time based on how they measure it.



I have learnt my lesson. Some people are quite happy to deny the reality that this is how the elite professional football clubs use stats these days. They can continue to howl at the moon about how it’s an American import - it’s not, its origins are from a Plymouth fan in the 60s working with a statistician, later built on by subsequent British statisticians, one of which went on to head up analysis at Spurs - but that’s irrelevant. It’s quite clear from the arguments that most don’t actually really know what it is or how it’s used. Some of the arguments being made are totally bizarre.

They can keep dismissively calling it bollocks. Doesn’t change the reality. Like any stat, it’s not the holy grail or anything but it has its uses when people actually understand what it is and what it represents.

Correct, all stats are just measurements. Like taking somebody’s height or weight. xG is just an average, there’s nothing mystical about it, it takes an enormous historic data set of shots on goal and just calculates averages out of it (these days they’re smarter about it but this is the basic premise). If you’re not interested in those averages then fine, nobody is telling you to be interested.

Somebody earlier in the thread said “the difference is that possession can be measured accurately” which just shows you that people don’t really understand even the numbers they’re familiar with. xG as a measure is more precise than possession which is incredibly difficult to determine. One is black and white (the averages are based on whether somebody scored or didn’t), the other has an infinite amount of shades of grey. Possession stats from different vendors conflict literally all the time based on how they measure it.



I have learnt my lesson. Some people are quite happy to deny the reality that this is how the elite professional football clubs use stats these days. They can continue to howl at the moon about how it’s an American import - it’s not, its origins are from a Plymouth fan in the 60s working with a statistician, later built on by subsequent British statisticians, one of which went on to head up analysis at Spurs - but that’s irrelevant. It’s quite clear from the arguments that most don’t actually really know what it is or how it’s used. Some of the arguments being made are totally bizarre.

They can keep dismissively calling it bollocks. Doesn’t change the reality. Like any stat, it’s not the holy grail or anything but it has its uses when people actually understand what it is and what it represents.

To measure possession just check all of the time that your team had the ball compared to all the time that your opponents had the ball, and then change the numbers to a percentage. Primary school level arithmetic.
To measure expected goals you have to take the same shot from the same place 1,000 times to discover that on 860 occasions the ball ends up in the back of the net. This gives an xg of .86.
The more I think about it the more stupid it seems.

 

[Donmcfc]

Correct, all stats are just measurements. Like taking somebody’s height or weight. xG is just an average, there’s nothing mystical about it, it takes an enormous historic data set of shots on goal and just calculates averages out of it (these days they’re smarter about it but this is the basic premise). If you’re not interested in those averages then fine, nobody is telling you to be interested.

Somebody earlier in the thread said “the difference is that possession can be measured accurately” which just shows you that people don’t really understand even the numbers they’re familiar with. xG as a measure is more precise than possession which is incredibly difficult to determine. One is black and white (the averages are based on whether somebody scored or didn’t), the other has an infinite amount of shades of grey. Possession stats from different vendors conflict literally all the time based on how they measure it.



I have learnt my lesson. Some people are quite happy to deny the reality that this is how the elite professional football clubs use stats these days. They can continue to howl at the moon about how it’s an American import - it’s not, its origins are from a Plymouth fan in the 60s working with a statistician, later built on by subsequent British statisticians, one of which went on to head up analysis at Spurs - but that’s irrelevant. It’s quite clear from the arguments that most don’t actually really know what it is or how it’s used. Some of the arguments being made are totally bizarre.

They can keep dismissively calling it bollocks. Doesn’t change the reality. Like any stat, it’s not the holy grail or anything but it has its uses when people actually understand what it is and what it represents.

 

[Donmcfc]

Correct, all stats are just measurements. Like taking somebody’s height or weight. xG is just an average, there’s nothing mystical about it, it takes an enormous historic data set of shots on goal and just calculates averages out of it (these days they’re smarter about it but this is the basic premise). If you’re not interested in those averages then fine, nobody is telling you to be interested.

Somebody earlier in the thread said “the difference is that possession can be measured accurately” which just shows you that people don’t really understand even the numbers they’re familiar with. xG as a measure is more precise than possession which is incredibly difficult to determine. One is black and white (the averages are based on whether somebody scored or didn’t), the other has an infinite amount of shades of grey. Possession stats from different vendors conflict literally all the time based on how they measure it.



I have learnt my lesson. Some people are quite happy to deny the reality that this is how the elite professional football clubs use stats these days. They can continue to howl at the moon about how it’s an American import - it’s not, its origins are from a Plymouth fan in the 60s working with a statistician, later built on by subsequent British statisticians, one of which went on to head up analysis at Spurs - but that’s irrelevant. It’s quite clear from the arguments that most don’t actually really know what it is or how it’s used. Some of the arguments being made are totally bizarre.

They can keep dismissively calling it bollocks. Doesn’t change the reality. Like any stat, it’s not the holy grail or anything but it has its uses when people actually understand what it is and what it represents.

And this head analyst at Spurs helped them to win how many trophies?

 

[Donmcfc]

High press.

Beating the press.

Press resistant.

Between the lines.

Drip dry only. Do not iron.